To diagnose paranoia, you first need to establish the subject is perceiving some kind of threat-to-self. Or, if you like the wiki definition:hgm wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 10:36 amIt is poor at tactics, which makes it a poor chess program, as tactics is an important part of chess. Is such elementary logic beyond you?
That you suffer from some kind of paranoia by now should be clear to everyone. There is no need to further stress that by telling us what other crazy ideas have invaded your mind...
"Paranoia is an instinct or thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of delusion and irrationality. Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory, or beliefs of conspiracy concerning a perceived threat towards oneself (e.g. the American colloquial phrase, "Everyone is out to get me"). "
Since this topic is about opposite bishop endings and then your quite stupid comment "LC0 is a poor chess program" you could maybe explain to readers where there the fear, anxiety, feelings of persecution or belief in conspiracy involving threat to self, is manifesting.
Have you been drinking again, or is it your normal behaviour when one of your dumb comments get challenged to double down and escalate to wild insulting from the DSM-5 manual?
Back on topic: "LC0 is a poor chess program" is a very stupid thing to repeatedly say about probably the strongest chess in the world, perhaps bar one, perhaps. If you insist on repeating it, and insulting anyone who holds to the rational view that it is not only a dumb, but an objectively false comment, then you can expect some more analysis back again.
You used to be quite enthusiastic about neural net chess, once right? Quite a few posts from you about using different input to the net and improving, possible, versus the zero versions. Then you stopped with the enthusiasm, if I remember correct, and now you are making negative sneering type comments about this particular program. It's a program, it never did you any harm, and it's a kind of group effort, it's done really rather well, and practically proved what it set out to prove, so why the hostility to it? "A poor chess program"? When people who should know better make objectively nonsensical statements, back by spurious technical rationalisations, it's a dead cert the negativity is for reasons other than the spurious technical rationalisations, and lie someplace else. My intuition tells me what happened is you tried to emulate LC0, failed, and rather than accept the pain of that failure, turned on the nature of the LC0 program itself.